Tuesday 22 March 2016

Yes, He Can! Why So Many Americans Are Voting For Donald Trump.

Striking A Pose: Those narrowed eyes, that tilted head, the jutting jaw: so reminiscent of Benito Mussolini. Donald Trump has never held elected office and has no record of public service upon which to build his candidacy. And yet, paradoxically, it is precisely this outsider status that draws so many Americans to him. They are not looking for someone who understands the system. They hate the system. The President they're looking for must be a wrecking ball!
WHAT LEADS THE MAN who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 to come out for Donald Trump in 2016? What prompts a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat to re-register himself as a Republican – just so he can vote for “The Donald” in the Florida Primary? Obviously it’s about disappointment. About “change we can believe in” turning into the same old Wall Street shuffle. About “yes we can” somehow acquiring the rider “but not quite yet”. Equally obviously, however, it’s about hope. If the eloquent graduate from Harvard Law School couldn’t, then maybe – just maybe – the ebullient, trash-talking property billionaire can.
Can what, though? That’s what’s got New Zealanders puzzled. Trump offers very little in the way of carefully considered and thoroughly costed policy. Indeed, a rational case for electing Donald Trump president is difficult to make. The man has never held elected office and has no record of public service upon which to build his candidacy. And yet, paradoxically, it is precisely this outsider status that draws so many Americans to him. They are not looking for someone who understands the system. They hate the system. They’re not in the market for a constructive candidate, they want a President who’s ready to go after the system with a wrecking ball!
The Republican and Democratic parties have only themselves to blame for Trump’s extraordinary run of primary victories. For three decades they have either crudely inflamed, or, loftily dismissed, the people they call “Trailer-Trash” and “Rednecks”: the very same people who are now turning out in their tens-of-thousands for the man who openly proclaims that he “loves” the “poorly educated”.
Are you going bald? Does your beer-gut spill over your belt-buckle? Do you work at a dead-end job for the minimum wage? Yeah? Well, guess what? The Donald loves you guys – and he wants your votes. Why? Because your votes, and the votes of those assholes up at the Country Club carry exactly the same weight. That’s right: exactly the same. And you know something else, fellas? There are way more of us than there are of them!
It’s taken these folk a while to work out that all the promises the Republicans made about abortion and gay marriage were only ever intended to keep them away from the Democrats. Not that they needed much persuading – not when the Democrats had already written them off as Bible-bashing misogynists, unreconstructed racists and gay-bashing homophobes. But now they have woken up. Now they know that the politicians in Washington have about as much interest in their welfare as their old employers did when they laid them all off, shut down the factories, and opened up new ones in Mexico or China.
That’s why they have no interest in Senators, or Governors, or any other representatives of the established order. That’s why they’re flocking to the man who’s so rich he doesn’t need to go cap-in-hand to the Koch brothers (like “Little Marco” Rubio). The man who “gets” what’s happened to people like them. The man who knows that the TPP is nothing more than a thieves’ charter, something cooked-up by and for the big corporations. The man who, like them, knows what it means to be ridiculed, excluded and hated – and isn’t afraid to say so out loud. The man who wears the scorn of the Establishment as a badge of honour, and who revels in its all-too-obvious fear.
When asked by journalists (“disgusting people”) what his reaction would be if the Republican Party grandees attempted to deny him the nomination, he didn’t answer them directly. What he would do was not something he was prepared to discuss. What he did tell the news media, however, along with the rest of the political class, was what his followers would do: “There’ll be riots in the streets.”
Moderate America – Hillary Clinton’s America – recoiled in horror. This was without precedent in the nation’s recent history. A presidential candidate had just warned the nation that his followers would not shrink from unleashing civil disorder – if that is what it took to secure their objectives.
Nothing less than the future of the American Republic is now at stake. Its fate in the hands of a social formation filled to the brim with the same reckless disdain for established order that drove the bluff burgesses, sturdy artisans, and unruly apprentice boys of Boston in the 1770s. The revolutionaries who concluded that if the Royal Government in London could offer them nothing more than the constant abrogation of their rights, then they would devise a way of governing themselves.
Two-and-half centuries later, the role of King George is being played by the Federal Government in Washington. Not for nothing did these latter-day rebels style themselves “The Tea Party”. They may not be historians, or political science graduates, but the imagery of the armed citizen stepping forward to confront tyranny is burned ineradicably into their political imaginations. Nor are they strangers to the grim business of securing their nation’s objectives by force. A great many of Trump’s followers are veterans of America’s most recent wars: the men and women who were “rotated” in and out of Afghanistan and Iraq far too many times. Not only are these good ole boys and gals ready to fight for their version of the United States of America – they know how.
Donald Trump, with a political empathy bordering on the fascistic, has made himself the leader of these disregarded Americans. He “gets” them in ways that Hillary Clinton (and even Bernie Sanders) cannot hope to emulate. Like every successful purveyor of nationalistic populism, he first stokes and then validates his followers’ anger. Because they have been cheated by those who claimed to be their friends.
But that’s all over now, because he, the Donald, will never cheat them. He will be their wrecking-ball. And, together, they will “make America great again”.
This essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog of Monday, 21 March 2016.


peteswriteplace said...

Quite frankly I don't believe the system will accept him - they will get rid of him, one way or another.

greywarbler said...

What does having good policy matter when there is a pack of die-hard toads in Congress? They are prepared to kill democracy and destitute (is that a verb) vast numbers of people by denying them government services relied on. With footling friends like that, why not go for someone who looks and sounds like a pugnacious, punchdrunk boxer? What the hell anyway, got nothing to lose eh. Just call him Guy Fawkes, and light the taper.

Guerilla surgeon said...

Hillary Clinton is America might be moderate America, but Hillary Clinton isn't that moderate. If you're following things at the moment she is under fire for accepting huge sums of money from various banksters for "fixing" regulations and making speeches of all things. That's why Sanders supporters can sometimes switch from him to Trump – a little bit like the "beefsteak" communists who joined the Nazi party. Obvious authoritarian affinities there, but obviously both sides pissed off with the establishment in the American case. It's going to be interesting times, and the normal meaning and the Chinese meaning of the words.

Anonymous said...

I believe he will get the Presidency ,if he gets the GOP nomination.
He will then spends $billions on an infrastructure programs including a wall between the US and Mexico.
He will re-negotiate trade agreements, much will change in the non/or tariff protection clauses
He will put up tariff barriers around the USA and create manufacturing industries, the railway system will be modernised and expanded.
Smart brainy people and company's will flock to his government and Czars of government departments will emerge so will Barons of industry.
Millions of jobs will be created.
I believe he will maintain cordial relations with China and forge new friendships with the Russians.
A new type of fascism will emerge without racial superiority as a basis.
The world will be in upheaval, after that, who knows but it could be a better world or it could be a mess, if its a mess democracy will disappear and a unknown new world order will emerge.
Am I wrong ?.

Bushbaptist said...

Will Trumpy be President #5?

seemorerocks said...

Moderate America – Hillary Clinton’s America?!!!

I agree with Marc Faber who said that Donald Trump will destroy America's economy. Hillary Clinton will destroy the world. Take your pick.

Anonymous said...

There was an interesting psychiatric analysis of trump voters last month.
The report said they had to go back to the early 50s to find theory to explain the test results they were getting.

Questions like, would you prefer your child to be obedient or questioning. Outgoing or well behaved.

The theory was last used when analysing former fascists in Europe after the war, and understanding why they were drawn to authoritarian leaders.

Current alignment is spot on with then too.

pat said...

" For three decades they have either crudely inflamed, or, loftily dismissed, the people they call “Trailer-Trash” and “Rednecks”: the very same people who are now turning out in their tens-of-thousands for the man who openly proclaims that he “loves” the “poorly educated”."

Except that the supporters of Trump I have seen reported in a range of media clearly demonstrates his support comes from a broad range of Americans from business people, self employed , graduates and yes even some uneducated, trailer trash good ole boys..... so feel your piece a little narrow in focus.

The consensus appears to be that Trump's support is indeed anti states quo....but not necessarily as a wrecking ball, rather it as a radical. Curiously the same motivation has been attributed to Sanders (surprising) level of support, whereas the "moderate"Clinton suffers from the taint of complicity.

Disgust with the system perhaps encompasses a broader segment of US society than you project in this article, and it would appear it is a feeling that is international.

manfred said...

I would much prefer business as usual neoliberalism (or this modern slightly modified version of neoliberalism), than Trump.

It's his volatility that bothers me.

markus/swordfish said...

GS: "A bit like the beefsteak Communists who joined the Nazi Party. Obvious authoritarian affinities there..."

Mind you, historians / political scientists / sociologists using Multiple Regression Analysis and various other quantitative techniques have shown that Germans who had voted for the Communist Party (KPD) were among the very LEAST likely to subsequently vote Nazi. Very few KPD supporters, anchored as they were in a very strong, all-encompassing partisan sub-culture, swung to Hitler.

Interestingly, though, a reverse process to the one you describe also took place: a number (albeit a small minority) of key figures in the German Communist Resistance during the 1930s and Second World War had originally been Nazis (or, at least, mixed in similar Far Right Volkish circles) in the immediate post-WWI period and during the 1920s, before rapidly becoming antagonistic towards Hitler and the Nazi leadership. Including one or two associated with some of the Red Orchestra groups.

Anonymous said...

He is also the only political leader anywhere that has the balls to stand up and say "the muslims are the problem - their religion is corrupt and violent" instead of "the religion of peace"

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Markus, I wasn't talking about them voting Nazi. I was basically talking about the time after elections – or rather after substantive elections. I don't know how many there were but they were a distinct phenomenon and have been studied as such. But it's also interesting how easily the Russians managed to turn a number of the generals that they captured at Stalingrad into communists.
Now that the beefsteaks'/generals' allegiances might not have been very deep, and there's plenty of controversy surrounding their motivation, but authoritarianism was certainly part of the motivation. As was nationalism in the case of converting communists.
Brendan, where are you when we need you? Anonymous 9:22 needs someone to tell them that they are not theologically qualified enough to make judgements about Islam :).

Robert M said...

A lot of the Trump voters will be former manufacturing and industrial workers on very low wages or unemployed who once were or expected to be employed at much higher rates. Many of these workers are probably of little value in a modern post industrial society. Other elements of Trumps views on Gender, Feminist and Immigration issues are of much more real and general interest.

Robert M said...

While Trump like Sanders and Corbyn clearly appeals to the displaced workers of the Rust Belt as Anderton and possibly even Prebble and Peters did to their New Zealand equivalents twenty years ago the real significance of Trump is that he challengers the conventional PC notions of the priority of gender and gay equality and the idea that women are really equal in military and political ability and have the monopoly on insight and intelligence and that their integrity can not be questioned. When you hear Hillary Clinton rabbit on the need for doubtful trans gender equality and rights you no the time for Trump is nigh. By own preference for Trump is also based on the view he is far more likely to win than the rather too obvious and ruthless Ted Cruz.
Trumps opening hit on Megan Kelly was one of the greatest opening political moves of the twenty first century. It was unfair, brutal and possibly directed against a genuine right wing women from the working class. The unfairness made it all the more effective as in my view, even intelligent women are attracted by verbal cruelty and style against those they dislike. It was obvious Megan Kelly was 45, menopausal and in age for all lip gloss, makeup and grooming not really of much sexual interest to most men, and no
longer the slightest reproductive potential, no longer menopausal or bleeding
When women like Anita McNaught work for Fox and a left wing, head case like Deborah Hill Cone pretends to be a right wing journalist , daugther of a psychiatrist (they usually are) and a South African activist, you know the conventional establishment right has lost the plot. The same with Act accepting MPs like Deborah Hill Cone, Heather Roy and president like Issacs, you know the party had lost the plot.

greywarbler said...

Anonymous at 9.22
Your remark is a strong example of why no self-respecting person would write here under Anonymous. What a load of rubbish. Possibly you are one of those vapid people who like to stir up righteous indignation.

And righteous it is. Anybody who knows anything (excluding you apparently) knows that all religions have times when they have indulged in the most heinous behaviour. Britain while it thought it was great, was riven with persecution between Anglicans, or whatever they called themselves then, and Catholics. Hindus have massacred Christians etc etc.

So go and have a cup of tea you silly person, and practice silly walks, or the fish dance (see Monty Python youtube) and don't waste our time with your attempts at serious blogging. To help you out -

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"Trumps opening hit on Megan Kelly was one of the greatest opening political moves of the twenty first century. It was unfair, brutal and possibly directed against a genuine right wing women from the working class."

See, here we go again with people MAKING STUFF UP. Her father taught at a university. In what way is that working class? She got a degree in political science and later a law degree. In what way is that working class? You cannot, repeat cannot just make shit up.

Jack Scrivano said...

Here is a thought: if you are going to make a post on this site, think what you want to say, and then say it as succinctly and stylishly as possible (as Chris does with his pieces). Do not rant. Do not splatter mindless half opinions masquerading as worthy comment.

I would suggest that at least half of the posts on this site give left thinking a bad rap. That is unproductive in the extreme. It is unlikely that you will convert conservative-thinking people to the progressive side with illiterate rants. Learn to write coherently. Learn to think before you take to the keyboard.

Of course, if your objective is simply to shout into the echo chamber, that’s your choice. But are you sure that’s all you want to do? It’s up to you.

Patricia said...

But does any American President have any power? Aren't they just a figure head who the "people" ooh and ah over or scream their hatred at? Where are the policies or is "policy" just an old fashioned word? I think that, unfortunately, democracy is on the way out. Yes we can vote but that vote means nothing now. All the politicians want is to be re elected. There doesn't seem to be any vision for any country anywhere. Just more of the same economic nonsense. To me it is amazing how quickly the world has been turned upside down which just really shows how easily the people can be manipulated. It is so frightening. A very good read on this very topic is a book by John Weitz called Hitler's Banker.

Anonymous said...

Who will lead the disregarded voters in NZ? Those in power here have been ignoring majority will for decades, and treating their so called constituents with barely the highest of arrogant contempt. Trump is just what America needs and just what we need too. Lucky old USA!!

Bushbaptist said...

All the Three Sons of Abraham are warlike Anon @9.22. Christianity is no different.

Trumpy wins the election -- the US is stuffed.

Hillary wins the election -- the World is stuffed!

Nick J said...

Grey, have always loved the fishdance. Cracked me up when I was at school.

You may be a little hard on Anon, the line about Trump saying that Moslems are a problem needs further examination. You quite rightly pointed out the intolerance of religions, and that is exacty the issue.

It was for very good reason that after much bloodshed Christian states by and large adopted a separation of church and state, and instituted freedom of confession. This is not the case with Islam, as a religion they are yet to reach that concept. There is no separation of religion from politics, Islam is a wholistic system.

Christianity worked much the same way until the Reformation, if you expressed disbelief you were liable to be burned as a heretic. What we are facing with Islamic fundamentalists is a mindset that the average European of 500 years ago would recognise and sympathise with.

I have a major problem with the politically correct view that to call Islam a problem (to us) is illiberal and racist. To address the liberal bit of "we stirred up the trouble by invading their countries etc", well yes we did and we deserve the response. But to put that in perspective, Vietnamese did not go around the world suicide bombing, they merely ejected the French and US from their country. Viet communities abroad dont set up no go areas with Sharia law as has happened in Europe. No other national, political or religious group (except Isreal) seek to justify inhuman deeds with religious dogma. To seek to explain Islamic violence as merely a result of Western sin is to deliberately deceive ourselves. When I was a young child I was told not to mess around with the snakes unless I wanted to be bitten, treat danger with respect and understanding, but be aware.

On the racist bit, I get immediately angry at charges of racism when talking about Islam. Its a religion, a sect, not a race. The bombers in Brussels looked like you and me, I have met Asian, African and European Muslims. If you talk about anything to do with a distinct group the "race" label gets played and applied really quickly to attempt to discredit what may be credible arguments.

And that is at the heart of the Trump phenomenon: he says what a hell of a lot of people have good reason for thinking. They may be wrong, but the liberal politically correct arguments fail with these people precisely because they are ideal and deliberately ignore or fail to recognise other peoples realities. Regularly liberals reject obvious facts because they don't fit the liberal agenda. And by doing so a vacuum is created in which alternative views gain traction, like those of Trump. Trumps supporters are no fools, every time you call him that more are attracted.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"Viet communities abroad dont set up no go areas with Sharia law as has happened in Europe. "

No-go zones?

"Where did the story of the no-go zones come from? Daniel Pipes, a U.S. historian and political commentator, says he believes he was the first person to refer to disadvantaged French neighborhoods as no-go zones. In a 2006 article, he said the existence of the zones suggested "that the French state no longer has full control over its territory."
Pipes now says he was mistaken. In 2013, after traveling to several listed Paris neighborhoods and mainly immigrant and Muslim areas of five other European cities, he wrote: "For a visiting American, these areas are very mild, even dull. We who know the Bronx and Detroit expect urban hell in Europe, too, but there things look fine … hardly beautiful, but buildings are intact, greenery abounds, and order prevails. … Having this first-hand experience, I regret having called these areas no-go zones," he wrote."

"Paris social-media wags have already posted a guide to "eating and drinking in the no-go zones," which happen to include some of the city's trendy gentrifying neighborhoods."

And sharia law?

"In the United Kingdom, for example, "Muslim Arbitration Tribunals" are officially mandated but set up outside the court system and can resolve civil and family issues through Islamic law; there are also reports of informal religious courts. There are similar Jewish courts in Britain"

Don't approve of that myself, but it's government approved.

This comes close to making shit up. Basically the only people who believe in this our conspiracy theorists. Such as Trump. Remember the Fox News guy who said that Birmingham was a no go zone and the hilarity that caused? As to the charge of racism, as long as many people judge Moslems by the way they dress and look, ignoring the fact that most Muslims in fact are Southeast Asian, it is racism and will continue to be racism. And if you don't think people are judged on the way they look, talk to those Sikhs who have been attacked in America for being Muslim. That "Islam is a religion so we can't be racist" meme is simply self-serving right wing political correctness.
As to 'liberals'– and I presume you're using the term in the American sense – rejecting obvious facts the champions of neglecting facts are Fox News where you seen to get much of your information from. You know what, sometimes I get angry, sometimes I just despair at the sheer ignorance displayed in some posts. Ignorance that less than half an hour of research could have put right.

greywarbler said...

I think your comment is very sound. And I have noticed this myself, and its failure to deliver good working policy:

They may be wrong, but the liberal politically correct arguments fail with these people precisely because they are ideal and deliberately ignore or fail to recognise other peoples realities. Regularly liberals reject obvious facts because they don't fit the liberal agenda. And by doing so a vacuum is created in which alternative views gain traction

I note your point that only Israel and these radical Islamists seek to justify inhuman deeds with religious dogma. Then you say When I was a young child I was told not to mess around with the snakes unless I wanted to be bitten, treat danger with respect and understanding, but be aware.

I don't know what this snake warning applies to, but it should be a precept considered before entering Islamist politics. What should have been a careful exchange of diplomacy and tactics, has become akin to entering a snakepit with poisonous snakes that transport themselves in time and space. Those using hostility to the hostile and aggressive should have borne in mind that wise advice to you.

Robert M said...

I'd love to see Guerilla Surgeon, holding Hillary Clinton or Helen Clark or Sanders to the same standards, as he hold me. In Political battle, in office, Clark and Clinton made things up every day, and continue to do so. Hillary Clinton was and is always making dubious claim. she claim to be named after Hillary the first up Everest was absurd, she had been a total supporter, off an Independent Palestine and a die in the ditch supporter for Israel. On Iran she varies from the hardest line calls for military action against Iran, to current passive acceptance of the Kerry/ Obama deal with the Mullahs which is really passive acceptance they will be allowed to get the bomb after a decent interval. If you followed Helen Clark's comments on say National Radio on the Nuclear Ships issue between 1983-1985 and the Skyhawk-F-16 issue you will hear repeated lies, distortion, twisting, deception, for eg claim that the USN had never required to send nuclear armed ships to NZ in the past, ( what about the USS America, Wgtn 1968: USS Intrepid Wgtn 1969 or USS Shangri La - Wgtn 1970 I would guess 500 nuclear bombs, missiles, and depth charges between them.
She claimed the RNZN strike force had never been called or used in conflict since Korea, it was in Malaya and in 1965 the B8 Canberra's were deployed to Tengah and and were armed and loaded ready to hit Djkartas airbases and naval bases when Healy called the mission off. ( Chris Pugsley/ NZ Defence book on Confrontation) During the late 1960s Muldoon as Minister of Finance constantly argued the RNZAF Canberras be deployed to Vietnam to join the less capable RAAF Canberras in heavy bombing of Vietnamese position. Clark claimed there was no rationale to the F-16 purchase the US supploed them due to the AUS- Indonesia crisis over Timor and the Indonesian banks.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Robert, I'm never quite sure what your point actually is, but you seem to be annoyed that politicians make stuff up. Well, so am I but that seems to be politics. Mind you, I think that right-wing politicians make stuff up a lot more than left-wing ones. At least extreme right-wing American politicians who seem to live in a fantasyland.

I'd love to hold Hillary Clinton, Helen Clark, and John Key, Donald Trump or any number of politicians to the same standards as I do you. I think the world would be a better place if we all could. If you could arrange it so that these people would interact with me, I promise I would do my best. Politicians these days all seem to live in a bubble which cuts them off from people like thee and me. I sort of long for the days when I threw a paper dart at Muldoon. Admittedly not very productive perhaps but then I was essentially a kid. Probably get guns pointed at me if I did it to one of today's politicians.

The only politician that I regularly interact with is – to his credit Wayne – "Afghanistan and Iraq are stable" - Mapp. And I do believe that I have tried to hold him to the same standards that I hold you to, because by God he makes stuff up with the worst of them. However if you get out of your Fox News foxhole, and look at people like Trevor Noah, Larry Wilmore, Samantha Bee, and even God help us Bill Maher you'll find that they are trying to hold Trump and others to some quite decent standards. Unfortunately comedians seem to be the only ones who are. The MSM simply wants Trump to sell newspapers/advertising for them. Get back to me if you think it's worthwhile after having a look. I'd love to recommend some right-wing comedians who try to hold politicians to standards, but there seems to be a dearth. The problem is, right-wing comedians simply make fun of people, rather than looking at the absurdities of power relationships. Still I suppose there's that arse 'Tay' Radar. Not very funny, but might be worth a look. Good luck Robert!

Nick J said...

GSM you obviously don't research enough before making your statements. I could put you in the right direction but if you are too lazy to look at any viewpoints other than those that agree with your own I will leave you to it.

You did exactly what I said conflating race with religion to label my viewpoint.

You get angry and despair at ignorance; I spent half a lifetime taking the ignorant approach of closing my ears to views that opposed how I wanted things to be. Nobody holds a monopoly on the truth. Surprise surprise some of what I oppose most may have validity.

So what makes me angry: illiberal liberals accusing others of conspiracy theories. Lazy minds pronouncing dogma. None so blind that won't see.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Nick. I notice you didn't address the substance of my argument. Your statements are typical of conspiracy theorists. The world is against you, people don't know the "real" story 'none so blind as those who won't see'– blah blah blah. Get back to me when you have some substance to argue. Or not, because you don't seem to have any.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Dammit forgot to post this.

Nick J said...

GSM go read again. There is no substance to address only labels such as racist and conspiracy theorist. You appear post too quickly to consider or research. Shoot from hip and labelling. Carry on.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

I posted a pretty comprehensive takedown of the whole idea of no-go zones, spoken by the very man who introduced the concept. I also gave an example of someone who was laughed at four suggesting that Birmingham was a no go zone. You could easily Google these. No-go zones don't exist except in your imagination and that of other islamophobes. So why don't you address this? I researched it reasonably briefly before I replied, because I already knew a fair bit about it having addressed this very topic for other true believers. If you had any substance yourself you would try to address these two points.
I've been in a few places myself where I felt just a tad uncomfortable, but they were nothing to do with Muslims, just American ghettos – full of Christians I might say – but even so the police were not too afraid to patrol them. So you either give me a specific example of a Muslim no-go zone or STFU, because you're just making shit up.
It will be nice to have another example of somewhere which is run by sharia law in Europe or the US. Other than the strictly limited and perfectly legal ones in Britain and the US. And of course there are the Jewish ones too. Not to mention that in some countries there is still a fairly limited but active Christian ecclesiastical law.
If you can't provide examples then you are still making shit up. That makes you a conspiracy theorist. And if you continue to make shit up I will continue to call you on it. Because you are simply not allowed to make shit up.

Charles E said...

Excellent piece Chris. That's him to a tee.
Although I too think he has a wider appeal, unfortunately.
I think Trump is indeed a fascist, or if not, a very good mimic of one.
If he wins the top job I'd be surprised though because I think a lot of extra voters will turn up to defeat him, like Latinos and of course women.
And if he wins he will still have the whole of the government machine against him, and two Houses perhaps to thwart the madder of his policies.
As we know, an Obama has shown, the US President is not actually as powerful a position as it may appear. Their Constitution intended it that way.